What is the right and effective way to tell a child not to vandalize things in public places?

Question

This is the setting:

• I'm with my 6-7 years old son in a dinosaur park (in a day not busy at all, so he will not behave as a good boy just because there's people around him who could make him feel ashamed)
• my son starts kicking a dinosaur sculputure
• I tell my son he should not do that
• he asks why

What are the pros and cons of the following answers, if the target is helping the child develop in the right direction (I hope we agree that not kicking the dinosaur is the right thing to do)? Most importantly, I'm interested in the negative effects of answer 1.

1. "The watchmen will reprimand you if he sees you"
2. "Because I say so"
3. "Because I will beat you"
4. "Because other kids like you have right to ... and you should respect ..."

I've sorted them from the most detrimental to the most effective based on my personal experience (as a son, not as a parent), however I'm asking this question because I'd like to find some authoritative material about this specific topic (telling a child You shouldn't behave like this because XYZ).

Edited to add: I am not a parent (of any child), just in case someone doesn't see the the "as a son, not as a parent" part.

Why am I asking this question?

Because I seen, for real, a parent telling the child the answer 1 below, which drove me crazy.

Answer 1

Of all your suggestions, only one really says “it’s not ok to kick the dinosaurs”. The other are sending a different message, which can be summed up as

Don’t do it when [some else with more power] sees it, because there may be undesirable consequences.

The logical next step for some clever kids is to do exactly what you don’t want them to do the moment they are unsupervised. As you probably realize that there’s no feasible way to supervise them 24/7 for the next decades, you need a different approach, you want to teach values. The goal is to get them to behave because they have the intrinsic motivation to do so - you’ll reap the benefits not just at the next trip to the dinosaur park, but hopefully in the next years as well.

This will also help if you don’t want to go through the process of explaining which individual actions are ok or not. If kicking the brachiosaurus is forbidden, I kick the stegosaurus instead? How about the trash can? The neighbor’s cat? See the problem?

And teaching values, may it be your personal values or what your social context considers as such, will require age-appropriate explanations. That may be your last bullet point (“we respect that other kids want to play with an undamaged dinosaur”) or whatever phrasing fits.

It’s a very good exercise to think about answers to the inevitable “why not?” questions for scenarios like this one - you’ll learn a lot about yourself. Especially if you can’t find a reason.

Answer 2

Something that hasn't been addressed is why the child is kicking the dinosaur.

• They are bored with the park or this exhibit ("Hey, don't damage the exhibits. If you're bored let's go and see the XYZ.")

• They are imagining fighting a dinosaur (Acknowledge the story. Compliment their bravery etc. Engage the imagination by talking about fighting a real dinosaur. Point out as a side issue that "It's a good thing this isn't a real dinosaur but let's be careful, it's only a model and we don't want to break it.")

• They are trying to get a reaction. ("Come on dinosaur killer! Let's not damage the exhibits we'll be in big trouble.")

Very often using "we" is less accusatory than "you".

Source: My mother who would always include children by using "we" so they felt she was on their side rather than against them.

Answer 3

Just to add to what other posters have said, this can be a good time to give a child a lesson in empathy as well. Something like "Well, that dinosaur belongs to someone. Would you like it if someone kicked your <favourite toy, games console, etc>?".

They would most likely say no, so then the obvious next question is "Why not?"

Answer 4

Quietly and politely, tell the child to please not kick the dino and give the best possible (age-appropriate) reason. Something like "Please don't kick the dino. The dinos in the park are not for kicking. If other kids start kicking them, the dinos will fall apart and then next time we come to the park, there will be nothing to play with."

Regarding this reason: "The watchmen will reprimand you if he sees you": It may be effective in the short term, but may not necessarily be what you want in the long term in your children. What if there is no one watching? Many things should probably be still off limits, such as starting a fight, stealing, or damaging other people's property. In my view, kicking the dino falls into the latter category, namely wrong whether or not there is anybody watching.

REFERENCES:

“Because I said so” is not a reason at all; it’s an appeal to brute force and a way of teaching children to rely on it themselves. It’s better not only to avoid that phrase but to make a point of offering reasons. Most of our requests can be explained even to two-year-olds in words they can at least partly grasp. (“Your brother’s waiting for us to pick him up at school; if we don’t go get him now, he won’t know where we are and he’ll be sad.”) Offering explanations doesn’t guarantee that a child will cheerfully accept our demands—just as it wouldn’t always work if someone were telling us we had to do this, or couldn’t do that—but it makes acceptance a lot more likely. In any case, people of any age are entitled to a reason when someone is limiting their options.

(pp. 182-183)

Alfie Kohn (2005) Unconditional Parenting: Moving From Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason. Atria Books, New York, NY: https://www.amazon.com/Unconditional-Parenting-Moving-Rewards-Punishments/dp/0743487478/

Answer 5

Why not simply tell him the true reason?

"You shouldn't damage the thing because it isn't yours."

Because it is the correct and logical answer, this one is more likely to work than the others and get the kid to learn something useful.

Then you could explain using simple examples: "If you have a toy you don't like, maybe you want to break it or throw it away, and you can do that because it's your toy, which means it's your choice. Of course if you break it, then you will no longer have the toy, so you might regret it later if you change your mind, but it was your choice. Now, if some other kid breaks your favorite toy and laughs at you, then you wouldn't like that, because it's your toy, not his."

Obviously if you teach property rights to a kid, the next time you tell them to clean their room he'll tell you "it's my room." That could also be an interesting learning opportunity though...

Answer 6

Here are some pros and cons that I can think of:

"The watchmen will reprimand you if he sees you"

Pros:

• Communicating that social rules are enforced
• Teaching that actions may have consequences
• Convenient as you as a parent are not saying no

Cons:

• Not communicating your own position on the matter (which means that the main message - that kicking is bad - is not communicated at all)
• Indirectly communicating that it's ok to do that if no one sees the activity

"Because I say so"

This one translates to "because I have authority here"

Pros:

• Convenient for the parent, since there is no need to think for a reason

Cons:

• Will work in early age, but may backfire later during the teenage years, since parent's authority will be questioned then.
• Does not teach much except for that one does not need to have a reason if they got power.
• Undermines trust in relationships.

"Because I will beat you"

Pros:

• Teaches the social hierarchy in an easy-to-understand way
• Teaches that actions may have consequences
• Convenient for the parent, since there is no need to think for a reason
• Some kids (and adults, for that matter) just don't understand words - will work in such cases

Cons:

• If used often will undermine trust
• I wonder if those adults who don't understand plain words became like that simply because force was the only argument given to them when they were growing up

"Because other kids like you have right to ... and you should respect ..."

Pros:

• Communicates your own position on the matter and the logic behind it as well as own position on related norms (mutual respect, sharing etc.)
• Actually explains proper social norms
• Builds trust by making a child "part of the crew" (essentially you are engaging in conversation with them)
• Teaches to look for a reason behind things

Cons:

• Skips the "actions may have consequences" part completely
• Won't work with some kids / sometimes

Answer 7

Have you thought about why you don't want your kid to vandalize things? No "authoritative" answer will be as convincing as your very own and authentic feelings and thoughts on the matter. Even "I don't want you to break it, because I like how it looks" will work better than any fake answer parroted from the internet. Kids have great BS sensors.

Answer 8

Dealing with this kind of thing starts at home.

What do you say/do when he kicks something at home? In my home there is an emphasis on looking after our possessions. "Don't throw that, you'll break it, and then you can't play with it anymore. We look after our possessions."

Emphasis on looking after our own things, because they are valuable and we work hard for what we have, and if they break we can't use them anymore, is a lesson taught at home with their own toys. We also model this behaviour by not throwing things or kicking things ourselves when angry, putting our own belongings away, and keeping things clean and properly maintained.

If my daughter behaves roughly with one of her toys, or throws it, it gets taken away for a significant period (at least several days), even if it is completely undamaged. This then can be extended to other people's things. Mama and papa's things, friends, and belongings of other people.

"Just like we look after our own things, and we must also look after other people's things too, and treat them like we would our own".

Answer 9

Actually both (2) and (3) are almost as bad as (1) because they only can be applied if someone knows what they did wrong. The question you need to ask yourself is not "How do I correct behaviour X?" but rather "Why is behaviour X wrong?" and "Why should anyone share my judgement of right and wrong regarding X?".

And there is something to be said for why the same word "value" can refer both to moral principles as well as preciousness. Ask yourself why a certain moral principle is actually precious. If you cannot justify that, then whatever justification you attempt to give will be quite meaningless.

By the way, you don't need so-called authoritative material about this. Frankly it reeks of the same problem as your (1) to (3). Authority can be wrong. You don't need it here. All you need is a fuller introspection regarding moral values.

The best way to teach a child that is old enough to understand the concept of "harm" is to discuss with the child in simple terms the consequences of actions like "kicking the dinosaur". The child may not fully realize that it would (mildly) harm someone else. You can prompt such discussion by asking "If other kids who came here before you all kicked this dinosaur like you did, do you think it would be as nice for you to look at now?" or similar questions, posed at a level appropriate for the age of the child.

Some other answers mention that you may want to leverage the concept of ownership that children have. I am not convinced that it is the best way, because there are really many things with no clear ownership. It is better to teach a child about choices and consequences.

For older children, this also includes teaching the reason for consequences that other people may have to impose on people who cause harm to others, in order to stop them from causing harm. If that takes some kind of isolation, that's just a consequence of the bad choices. Of course, it must be done in a humane way, appropriate to the circumstances and age of the offender.

At the end of the day, reasoning about morality only works for those who want to engage in such reflection. Those who refuse to do so or perversely rationalize harmful behaviour must be isolated to protect those who do. It's just a necessity in our imperfect world. You can discuss this in more and more depth with children as they grow up, but ultimately they still have to make their own choices; there is no method that has any sort of guarantee on 'effectiveness'.

Answer 10

So yea there are some fairy tale answers here. I think they are thinking about this too deeply.

1st - it is a MAJOR issue if you kid wants to damage/vandalize random things. There is something wrong with him/her. Whether this is being upset about something, an issue that is not being dealt with or unstable discipline... the kid is lashing out. Let's not worry about blame but let's nip it.

2nd - vandalizing or kicking/hitting things is wrong. You don't need a dinosaur park to explain that. It simply isn't in the bag of things a kid that young should do.

3rd - you need to explain that first people don't do those things, at least good people don't. And you think your child is good. And you want them to be good. And you won't accept anything different.

4th - let your kid think about it. Ask them what they are thinking. Figure out what the motivation is.

5th - take their @ss home right away no matter what. Then spend time with them at home going over appropriate behavior. You don't discipline at dino park.

6th - I am happy to receive downvotes for adding this... if my kid acts out like that (and at least one of my kids has come sort of close)... a deep stare, a threat, and the hand of god should be raised. It is one thing for a kid to vandalize things like that. I mean its really bad. But to do so in front of you blatantly. Well there should always be 1% of a child scared of a parents discipline and yours is taunting you. If your kid has that amount of respect for you (which may not have to do with you personally) then what will happen to teachers, friends, coaches, and the law when they are older?

Answer 11

Let's go through these one at a time:

1. "The watchmen will reprimand you if he sees you" - that implies that the only reason that you wouldn't do something like this is that you might get caught. So, in the future, will he avoid doing stuff like that, or will he only be careful not to get caught?
2. "Because I say so" - not very convincing, and not really an answer to the question. Besides, do you really want him to avoid it merely because you told him to, or do you want him to avoid doing it because he understands that it's wrong?
3. "Because I will beat you" - same problem as #1. If fear of punishment is the main reason not to do this, there's no particular reason not to do this if he won't get caught. So again, the takeaway is "make sure that you don't get caught."
4. "Because other kids like you have right to ... and you should respect ..." This is technically true, but I'm not sure that this is complete. Yes, he should have an abstract understanding that this is wrong, but is that the only reason that he shouldn't do it?

That being said, let me propose a fifth possibility: help him to empathize with the other kids. In particular, if he understands how the other kids would feel if the sculpture got damaged, that's really the best situation.